If there’s an earthquake — I hope people/children are more concerned about getting to safety rather than calling mommy and telling her that they are about to die because rather than get to safety they got distracted by their phone calling her.

After the earthquake, if it’s catastrophic, the parents know where the kids are. Hint: AT THE FUCKIN’ SCHOOL. And they will likely need to go pick them up anyways.

What kind of stupid thought process led you to believe you’re making some sort of intelligent point here? Get real, touch grass.

Well that just seems like a bad study. If restricting phone use at school doesnt actually lower phone use at school then that just means the school didnt enforce the rules...

Thats whate they are saying with that first sentence right? Restrictive rules are not associated with phone use. Thats only possible if the rules arent being applied.

Banning social media for people under 18 years old also offload parenting works to the government and corporations, this will impact everyone privacy and sincerely I'd rather keep my privacy even if I don't use corporate social media.

Your second suggestion is appealing, why we don't put cameras in people houses to see if they comply and if they don't straight to jail.

Also we make special routers that enforce parental control unless you provide an id or you are capable enough to allow specific devices to go on blacklisted websites, and you must have one if you have kids, at the store the guy at the counter will ask for your id and will have all of your relatives ages, the same will apply with ISP.

I'm sorry you are overworked but I'm pretty sure that unless you have to search kids backpacks in your specific instance you can make it like my teachers and professors managed to do 15 years ago.

How does this work? Well you spot a cellphone and you get it from the kid, you don't spot one you go about with your lesson, you have shitty kids and you fear them and their parents? Let em use the phone and have them fail the year or I don't know maybe its not the job for you but its not like you have to do double work to confiscate a phone.

Also kids will have cellphones no matter what, they will have it to call home and for emergencies, so parents involved in what? A good parent dont want their kid to use it during the lesson, but they don't know better, many of them dont know how to set parental control or if it even exist.

Sorry if this come across as harsh, but I'm more tired then you to have my freedom stripped away for children and stupid teens.

People under 18 shouldn't be on social media, at all. It's incredibly bad for them, as proven by many many studies. You don't need to lose your liberties for this, I guarantee you that google/apple know most people's age from their super vast data collection based on how much people overshare online. All it takes is to force these giant companies to actually enforce the use of their own technologies, and for governments to spread awareness on how and why to use them, passing a law making it mandatory and part of parental duties is just an icing on the cake that can be used by schools to demand that parents parent their kids.

As a teacher, I do mind taking a student's phone away, as I don't think the phone itself is the problem, but what they're doing with it. And the best approach is not to simply shun the device, but to learn and foster how to use such a powerful tool as a potentiator of education. Banning devices is stupid because it's the easy way out, the lazy choice. It has been done since I was a kid and all some of us had were brick phones that could call our parents and maybe play simple games. And It has never worked, I know because I often would play games under the desk and my classmates would also often use their phones for games or sms. And today, even if you force kids to hand their phones in at the entrance, or lock them away, they can easily have a backup old phone to hand in instead of their actual phones. And this all comes back to parents. Where are kids getting phones? Why are they being allowed to stay their whole day in them? Because parents don't want to parent, and governments don't want to do what's actually right but hard, so they all decided that it's easier to shift the responsibility for controlling device use onto teachers and schools and pretend the problem is solved. It's not.

Yeah I agree kids should not be on social media its bad for them, they get brainwashed and all I agree 100%.

What i dont agree on is giving apple and google more power I also think they shouldn't have the data you mention, they should be fined heavily and imprisoned for gathering anybody data for any reason, I dont trust any corporation or government with my data, if it was for me these corporation tech would be banned.

What you are asking is governments and corporation to use the Chinese model on us, we ain't far from that weather you are in Europe or in the USA, this is a privacy loss for adults too in the name of children again, if you enforce what you are talking about the very platform we are discussing on right now would stop existing, just look at what some admins say about the chat control law in the EU or how the UK are now banned from virtually all Lemmy instances for doing to exactly what you are talking about.

This will put on little websites and platform the weight of handling your personal real data, I would rather see a law that ban corporations complex algorithms on social media completely so at least kids won't be targeted by algorithms for their insecurities or be manipulated systematically.

And its not stupid for government to not act on this its just lazy to ask to enforce for digital IDs on each and every platform instead of seeing the big picture, which is all corporations social medial are cancer and shouldn't exists at all, American social media are made to sell you crap and make you insecure or angry, Chinese social media are brainwashing camps who also try to sell you crap, and yes there are valid creators on those platform that make educative or interesting content I could name you a lot of them but we both know they are not reaching kids.

In brief what should be targetes if anything is corporate social media algorithms, their ads and held accountable harmful creators for example the Tate brothers and other idiots, we should stop allowing data collection like its worth nothing and stop thinking that checking on everyone private data is OK in the name of the children.

And at last do you really think these parents won't load their own adult digital id on these brats phones ?

Has any place in the world ever been actively “flooded” with migrants of a vastly different culture in recent history?

Any place that borders a very culturally different country that has a massive crisis. They usually get banned from working and shoved in refugee camps, though.

But anyway,

Why are humans like this?

Probably stuff that happened in prehistory, some quirk of evolution. It's definitely not rational.

From the article:

Without offering evidence, Israel has in the past identified emergency responders who work under the Hamas-run government as militants to be targeted, including in the killing of 15 medics in March, when Israeli troops opened fire on ambulances in southern Gaza.

The information is there if you read it.

mourning the journalists killed by the terrorist state

Mourning the dead has no business being mixed in with news in a regular article - that belongs in an obituary or editorial. It sounds like you want the AP to compromise its journalistic integrity by offering unambiguous condemnation instead of cold facts.

Being biased (i.e. not being neutral):
1. does not accomplish as much as you think it does, because the plain facts allow people to find the truth already. Only a minority of people will be swayed
2. does harm that you are ignoring: it reduces trust in the outlet, and in journalism in general.

So yes, there is absolutely space for neutrality; indeed it is critical.